Telangana High Court
M/S. Viswabharathi Mining ... vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh, ... on 29 October, 2022
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, C.V. Bhaskar Reddy
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
W.P.No. 14051 of 2007
ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Ms. N.Sobha, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Venu Gopal, learned Government
Pleader for Mines and Geology representing respondents
No.2 and 3.
2. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the
order dated 18.05.2007 passed by the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Kothagudem, directing the petitioner to pay
Rs.6,64,000.00 towards conversion fee and Rs.3,32,200/-
being 50% of penalty on conversion fee, total amount
being Rs.9,96,600.00.
3. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is seen
that agricultural land to the extent of Acs.302.00 in
Sy.No.76/1 situated in Seripuram Village of Garla
Mandal, Khammam District was converted to non-
agricultural purpose without obtaining permission as
required under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh
Agricultural Land (Conversion of Non-agricultural
Purposes) Act, 2006 (briefly 'the Act of 2006'). Show cause
notice was issued to which petitioner had filed reply.
However, reply was not accepted as the land was found to
be utilized for non-agricultural purposes (mining
purpose).
4. This Court by order dated 07.09.2007 had
admitted the writ petition for final hearing and suspended
operation of the impugned order dated 18.05.2007.
5. In the hearing today, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that challenge made to the impugned
order dated 18.05.2007 would be covered by the findings
of the Full Bench of this Court in paragraph 52 of
M/s.Mahabaleswarappa Vs. Commissioner of Land
Revenue1.
6. That was a case where the Full Bench of this
Court considered various facets of the Andhra Pradesh
1996 (4) ALT 334
Non-Agricultural Lands Assessment Act, 1963. It may be
mentioned that the said Act was subsequently repealed
and replaced by the Act of 2006 under which the
impugned order came to be passed.
7. Paragraph 52 of the judgment of the Full Bench
in M/s.Mahabaleswarappa (supra) reads as under:
"52. From the above, it is clear that the
non-agricultural lands on which mining
operations are conducted are entirely within the
purview of Central Legislation for payment of
dead-rent, royalty, surface rent, security
deposit, etc. The royalty and dead-rent are
collected on the minerals produced from the
mines, whereas surface rent and water cess are
collected on the land itself. It is further provided
in Rule27(d) that collection of surface rent and
water cess should not be more than the land
revenue. Thus, the Rules make it clear that
surface rent and water cess are levied and
collected by the State Government as per the
terms and conditions of the lease. It, thus,
amounts to determination of assessment by the
State Government on non-agricultural land used
for mining operations. When the State
Government collects tax by virtue of the power
conferred under the Central Act, the field is
completely occupied by the Centre. The State
cannot collect any other tax, unless it is
incorporated in the lease deed as one of the
terms. Therefore, no assessment can be levied
and collected on non-agricultural lands used, for
mining operations, unless, it is provided in the
lease deed itself as one of the terms. Section 2(d)
of the NALA Act has, therefore, to be read down,
to the extent, that the lands covered by mining
operations will be determined for assessment as
per the terms and conditions in the lease deed
only."
8. Following the above Full Bench decision, we hold
that only that portion of the land actually covered by
mining operation would be covered by the subsequent Act
i.e., the Act of 2006. Accordingly, the demand would have
to be confined to such land by the authority.
9. That apart, from a reading of the order
dated 18.05.2007, we find that no reasons have been
assigned by the Revenue Divisional Officer as to why the
explanation furnished by the petitioner was found to be
not satisfactory and was accordingly rejected.
10. That being the position, we set aside the order of
the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kothagudem, Khammam
District dated 18.05.2007 and remand the matter back to
the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kothagudem, Khammam
District to pass fresh order(s) in accordance with law,
after giving due opportunity of hearing to the writ
petitioner. The above exercise shall be carried out within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
11. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to
costs.
______________________________________
UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ
______________________________________
C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J
29.10.2022
MRM
